Sunday, September 28, 2008

The September 27, 2008 edition of the SSPX's DICI has the text of a sermon of Bishop Fellay from August 15, 2008. Part of his sermon provides further details (from his perspective) regarding the "Five Conditions" (emphasis added):

I would like to take advantage of the occasion to give you some news about what is going on presently in Rome with regard to the Society. You probably heard that there was a question of an ultimatum? Where do we stand now? First of all, this ultimatum is strange, because, usually when this type of action is taken, there is an object. In our case, we really wonder what the point was. At the beginning of the month of June, I was summoned by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos because the latest Letters to Friends and Benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X was reviewing the situation and clearly stated that we were not ready to swallow the poison found in the Council. The Roman authorities did not like this. What displeased them was the fact that we said that we would not change; that we would resist, and that we would not drink the poison. Consequently, I was summoned to Rome, and there, I was handed a typed sheet. The meeting took place in the offices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission -- as a side note, it was the first and only time I went to these offices. So, in the room were present the Cardinal, the vice president of the Commission, Bishop Perl, the secretary Msgr Marini, and the Cardinal’s private secretary. I was accompanied by Father Nély.

We were handed a written note, and the cardinal asked me to read it aloud in front of everybody. In this letter which really sounded like an ultimatum, it basically said: “Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so. Today, you must accept the clear conditions which we are going to impose upon you.” After having read it, I asked the cardinal what were the clear conditions, since they were not written. The cardinal answered nothing at all. So I asked the question again, saying: “What do you expect of me?”; at that moment, almost under his breath, he answered: “If, in conscience, you think you must tell this to your faithful, do so! But you must respect the person of the pope.” To this I retorted that I had no problem with this. And the meeting ended upon this. How can I affirm that the reason for the meeting was truly the latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors? Because I asked him, since he was referring to it. I said: “Could you tell me what is wrong in this letter?” He read it over in front of me, and the only reproach he could come up with was the fact that I had written that convents and seminaries were empty. He told me: “This is not true.” That was the one and only reproach.

So, what is the point of the ultimatum? What is its object? After the meeting, I told Father Nély that I felt very much frustrated, because I had witnessed a stage rehearsal. They had put on a very emotional show with the cardinal declaring: “That is the end of it! I call a press conference. I give it all up!” As to what they were really expecting of me, I had not the faintest idea. Consequently, I sent Father Nély back the next day to ask the question once again: “What do you want?” That is when they had him wait for half an hour, enough time for them to write the famous five points which were broadcasted on the Internet.

The first of the 5 points says: “Bishop Fellay must commit himself to give an answer proportionate to the pope’s generosity.” What could be the meaning of this? The sentence is extremely vague and could mean everything and nothing. We were forced to suppose that the generosity of the pope was the Motu Proprio. And the proportionate response was to thank him for it, while acknowledging that it was not made for us, since it was for all the priests of the Church. Otherwise we do not see what it meant.

Next, I had to commit myself, in this same letter, to respect the person of the pope. I suppose it meant that he must not be insulted, but if you consider it an insult to say that he is perfectly liberal, right after a visit to the USA, during which he did nothing but praise the American State, declaring that religious liberty was great… Truly, you cannot find a statement more liberal than this. I see nothing insulting in my words.

The third point is more “touchy” because they ask me not to set myself up as “a magisterium above the pope, and not to place the Society in opposition to the Church.” Once again, this can mean everything as well as nothing at all. With this sentence, each time we would present an objection, we might be told: “You set yourself above the pope.” This point makes us clearly understand that Rome does not at all agree with the fact that we dare say something against the Council. That is where the problem lies.

September 26, 2008

Parish priests and bishops “must accept” the requests of Catholics who ask for the older (Latin) form of the Mass, a senior Vatican official has said. This is “the express will” of the Pope, “legally established,” which “must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries [bishops] alike,” he insisted. Hoyos continued, stating that “all seminaries” should provide training in the old form of the Mass “as a matter of course.”

Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos ―the man charged with implementing Pope Benedict’s liberalisation of the Latin Mass and other rites as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council―made these remarks in a preface to the forthcoming edition of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the standard English manual on how to celebrate the older rites, released yesterday.

Hoyos commended the book―the fifteenth edition since it was first published by the English priest Dr Adrian Fortescue in 1917―edited by the London based “distinguished liturgical scholar” Dr Alcuin Reid as “a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites” that Pope Benedict has authoritatively decreed may now freely be used. The volume is due for publication by Continuum/Burns & Oates by the end of 2008.

Alcuin Reid, speaking from London, said: “The honour that the Cardinal has accorded this book underlines the importance of the older forms of the Mass and sacraments in Pope Benedict’s overall renewal of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church.” He continued, “We’re at a critical moment in the history of the liturgy, and taking away restrictions on the celebration of the older rites enables them to contribute to, and even re-inform the quality of, Catholic worship worldwide.” Continuum’s London Publishing Director, Robin Baird-Smith, added: “We’re delighted that this title has returned to the Burns and Oates imprint, and to be publishing such an important volume at this time.”

Adrian Fortescue, J.B. O’Connell & Alcuin Reid, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described will be published in October 2008 (December 2008 in the United States).

TNLM also posted the Preface:

From the new edition of the Ceremonies, here is Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' preface:

It is a pleasure for me to present this fifteenth edition of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the first edition to appear since the Motu Proprio of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, dated 7th July 2007, definitively clarified that the rites according to the liturgical books in use in 1962 were never abrogated and that they truly constitute a treasure that belongs to the entire Catholic Church and should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful. It is now clear that Catholics have a juridical right to the more ancient liturgical rites, and that parish priests and bishops must accept the petitions and the requests of the faithful who ask for it. This is the express will of the Supreme Pontiff, legally established in Summorum Pontificum in a manner that must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries alike. [NLM Emphasis]

The Holy Father is pleased at the generous response of many priests to his initiative in learning once again the rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the other sacraments according to the usus antiquior so that they may serve those people who desire them. I encourage priests to do so in a spirit of pastoral generosity and love for the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite. Seminarians, as part of their formation in the liturgy of the Church, should also become familiar with this usage of the Roman Rite not only in order to serve the People of God who request this form of Catholic worship but also in order to have a deeper appreciation of the background of the liturgical books presently in force. Hence it follows that all seminaries should provide such training as a matter of course. [NLM Emphasis]

This book, a classic guide to the celebration of the Church’s ancient Gregorian Rite in the English-speaking world, will serve priests and seminarians of the twenty-first century – just as it served so many priests of the twentieth – in their pastoral mission, which now necessarily includes familiarity with and openness to the use of the older form of the sacred liturgy. I happily commend it to the clergy, seminarians and laity as a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites authoritatively granted by the Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum.

I congratulate the distinguished liturgical scholar, Dr. Alcuin Reid, for his care and precision in ensuring that this revised edition conforms to the latest authoritative decisions with regard to these liturgical rites. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” The Gregorian Rite is today a living liturgical rite which will continue its progress without losing any of its riches handed on in tradition. For as the Holy Father continued, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” May this book assist the Church of today and of tomorrow in realising Pope Benedict’s vision.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A year after Pope Benedict XVI opened the way to wider use of the Tridentine Mass, implementation of the papal directive is drawing mixed reviews from its target audience.

Catholic traditionalists remain grateful for the pope's document and say it has given them a certain legitimacy in local church communities, as well as greater practical access to the old rite.

But some -- backed by a Vatican official -- have complained that bishops and pastors continue to place obstacles in the way of groups seeking the Tridentine liturgy.

On a long-term issue, traditionalists are pleased at new efforts to instruct priests in celebrating Mass in the older rite. Meanwhile, those who envisioned Tridentine Masses popping up in every parish are somewhat frustrated.

"We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board," said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.

Sonnen and about 150 others attended a small but significant conference in Rome in mid-September on the theme: "'Summorum Pontificum': One Year After."

"Summorum Pontificum" was the title of the pope's 2007 apostolic letter that said Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite, should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it. In his letter, the pope said the Mass from the Roman Missal in use since 1970 remains the ordinary form of the Mass, while celebration of the Tridentine Mass is the extraordinary form.

The response to the papal letter varied around the world. In the United States, many bishops -- even those not enthusiastic about the new policy -- took steps to explain it to their faithful and put it into practice.

But in Europe and Latin America, conference participants said, there's been less favorable reaction.

"In Italy, with just a few admirable exceptions, the bishops have put obstacles in the way of applying ('Summorum Pontificum')," Msgr. Camille Perl told the Rome conference.

"I would have to say the same thing about the major superiors of religious orders who forbid their priests from celebrating Mass in the old rite," Msgr. Perl said.

Msgr. Perl is vice president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," which oversees implementation of the papal document, so his words carried weight. Italian newspapers reported his comments under the headline "The bishops are boycotting the pope."

Two Brazilian priests attending the conference complained that they're facing a similar situation in their country.

"I think there's a great desire on the part of young priests to learn the older rite. But we don't study it in seminaries, and the bishops don't cooperate on that," said Father Giuseppe Olivera of Sao Paolo.

Msgr. Perl said letters received by his commission indicate considerable interest in setting up local Tridentine Masses in France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States and Australia. He said there have been fewer requests for the older Mass in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who heads the "Ecclesia Dei" commission, said recently that Pope Benedict would eventually like to see the Tridentine rite offered in every parish. But for now, in the pope's own Diocese of Rome, a single church, Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, has been designated as a "personal parish" for traditionalists.

That's a solution that appeals to some dioceses, especially those that include large cities, but it tends to separate traditionalists from other local parishes. It also seems to put bishops in charge of the decision of where and when a Tridentine Mass is offered, instead of the local pastor, as indicated by "Summorum Pontificum."

Father Joseph Kramer, pastor at Rome's Santissima Trinita church, said that so far his parish is attracting a lot of younger people and those over 50, but not many in between and few young families.

In general, he said, it's important for traditionalist Catholics to make it clear that they accept the changes of the Second Vatican Council, in order not to frighten off "normal" Catholics who might be attracted to the older rite.

U.S. Father John Zuhlsdorf runs a blog -- "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" -- that's become a sounding board for reaction to "Summorum Pontificum" among traditionalist Catholics.

One recent comment on the blog began: "Frankly, I'm sick and tired. Tired of waiting. 'Summorum Pontificum' has been in force for one year now and, in spite of the fact that I live in a huge metropolitan area, there is no TLM (traditional Latin Mass) to which I can go" without driving at least an hour.

Father Zuhlsdorf, who attended the Rome conference, said he understands some of these frustrations but takes a generally positive view of the first year of "Summorum Pontificum."

One good thing, he said, is that the papal directive has deeply affected priests, especially younger priests, and their perception of "who they are at the altar." As time goes on and older priests and bishops retire, this interest will have a ripple effect on parish life, he said.

Another plus is that resources for the older rite, including beautifully bound missals, are being produced and published. These could appeal to Catholics and "help change the culture of participating at Mass," Father Zuhlsdorf said.

In addition, he said, some U.S. seminaries are beginning to introduce courses in celebrating the Tridentine rite. Private training programs for priests, workshops and Web sites also have been established.

He compared it to the Ford Motor Co. putting a new model into production.

"It takes a long time to construct the assembly plant, but once you get the thing built you can get the product out more quickly," he said.

In the more-to-be-done category, Father Zuhlsdorf said there are still some priests and bishops who have "a bit of a stingy attitude" about the legitimate requests of traditionalists.

He said Latin proficiency is an example of where a double standard seems to be used to create an obstacle to the wider offering of the older Mass. While it's true that a priest celebrating in Latin has to know what he's saying at the altar, he said, one could also ask about proficiency in English among priests coming from a foreign country to serve in the United States.

In any case, he said, the Code of Canon Law requires that all seminarians be well-trained in Latin. If that isn't being done today, seminary officials should be addressing the problem, he said.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Most of the time, I think, these expressions of frustration come from decades of being deeply hurt by their priests and bishops and other Catholics who showed contempt for their aspirations about the older form of Mass and the Sacraments and the expressions of doctrine and devotion that go hand in hand with them. Now, when they do have greater recognition of their rights, they are venting a little, of course… but when they sense that old treatment rearing its ugliness, when they receive that blow upon the bruise, they lash out as they did of old.

His commentary on the CNS article is worth reading:

Cardinal: Some not satisfied even after pope’s Tridentine Mass decree

By Cindy WoodenCatholic News Service

ROME (CNS)—Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI’s wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. [This sets a bit of a sour note at the start. Sure, as I said above, there are still some difficult folks out there. But there are also many who are grateful and irenic. I wish they would write to the Commission and their bishops to express gratitude!]

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum," the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."

"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints. [Well… YAH! This is called freedom of expression. This is also the 21st century. The internet is now something that must be taken into consideration. It isn’t going away… any more than the Novus Ordo is going away. Alas, sometimes people make unreasonable requests and they can be pesky. They often don’t think things through very well. They often say things they shouldn’t. But let’s turn the sock inside out and see the other side. I don’t see the Holy See acting with lightning speed to respond to some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Some of the frustration being expressed through the alternative media and means of communication is rising because there is a perception that not a lot is being done to carry forward what we have been told is a desirable thing: .... Didn’t we hear from someone that the Holy Father desired that the older Mass be widespread, indeed that perhaps even many…. even every… parish might have it? So is it a surprise that people express themselves about that? ]

The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship. [And so the question is… where’s the document?]

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope’s 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II. [I suspect that on the list of those who are not satisifed with what has been given, you might find some members of the SSPX.]

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward. [Hang on… I am not sure that they absolutely refused. Didn’t Card. Castrillon express a measure of qualified satisfaction that he received a response?]

"The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation," Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. "What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?"

The cardinal said the Mass—in whatever language it is celebrated—must be a service motivated by love and "never a sword" used against other Christians.

By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, "the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying" the people of God.

"When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity—the Eucharist—how can we fight?" Cardinal Castrillon asked. [While I agree entirely with that, it is not really too hard to grasp why people fight about it. It the Eucharist, the Sacrament and its celebration, are trully the fons et culmen as we have been told incessantly since Vatican II, then we shouldn’t be surprised that people get worked up over it, especially in climate where a venerable rite was virtually supressed, those who loved it were marginalized, and liturgical abuses reigned far and wide for years.]

I would be willing to bet that most of those writing to PCED (probably greater than 95%) have quite legitimate concerns, which have NOT been addressed over the 14 months that have passed since publication of Summorum Pontificum.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

[Note: This is the fourth in a series of articles. A proper understanding of the author's intent presumes a reading of the series as a whole. This would include the first, second, and third parts of the series.]

Upon leaving the office of President of the United States, the late Harry Truman commented on the fate which awaited his successor. It went something like this: "Poor Ike. He'll get in this job, and think he's still in the Army. He'll tell everybody, do this, and do that, and then wonder why it doesn't get done."

Here's where the buzz continues on Angelqueen, CTN-GREG, and all the other internet fora, in which the huddled masses of armchair pundits will demand that this transformation take place by... well, how's next Sunday? No kidding. There are plenty of otherwise educated and informed people out there, who genuinely wonder out loud how this could not have happened immediately, simply because someone in charge wanted it to happen badly enough.

In our last installment, we covered some reasons why said transformation is not going to happen in quite the way that its adherents imagine. But even for those who are willing, there is the prospect of co-existing with those who are not.

For one thing, no matter how perfectly clear a leadership is, on that which is to be carried out, "prefectly clear" is never clear enough for someone who doesn't want to hear it. And you've got an entire infrastructure in the Church, that is accustomed to doing things a certain way, regardless of how necessary a change may be. To give you an example, I've got a dear old friend back in Ohio who's a priest, a very good and conscientious one in all respects, except maybe for one. He tells his parishioners that "the Latin Mass" simply will not happen on his watch, and that his parishioners who want it are free to attend old Father Fezziwig's place down near the water treatment plant. (Something like that.) All this is to say, that it is not enough for those who love the Old Mass to want it. Those who couldn't care less have to learn to live with it, and their collective hand has yet to be forced.

What we would require, in the end, is a dramatic series of events equivalent to that which happened in the five or six years following the Second Vatican Council, the one that culminated in the "Novus Ordo Missae" of Pope Paul VI -- in other words, that which supposedly unraveled fifteen centuries of unbroken tradition to begin with.

Even for those parishes that want the Traditional Mass -- and I mean really REALLY want it, every Sunday morning at the same more-or-less convenient time -- you need at least two priests in residence (or at the very least, two who are readily available) who are competent to celebrate it, to ensure that this will happen regularly. If Father Number One gets called away at the last minute, or is otherwise indisposed, you have to have a Father Number Two, or the best laid plans... you get the idea.

Next, and for the long haul (the one we never consider when wanting something immediately), you have to require seminarians to learn to celebrate the Traditional Mass. To do this, means not to make it an option, but to require it. That's "require," as in "learn this or don't get ordained." If you are successful at pulling this off starting -- er, uh, today, your mandate will bear fruit in six years.

But we all know that won't happen today, don't we? (See "not clear enough," above.) Any future clarification from the Holy See, if there is to be any "value added," will have to be explicit, not to mention take the form of a directive, in articulating what is to happen, and by what time. Anything short of a direct order will be met with resistance in some parts of the world. Indeed, it is possible that even a directive would be ignored in a few cases. Historically (and I'm stating this in terms of two millennia of history), this cannot be ruled out.

Now, getting past all that, we have roughly half a century of iconoclastic architecture for new churches, and really bad makeovers for older churches, around which we have to maneuver. That would be hard enough in a place originally built and/or functioning exclusively for the ancient form. But when both have to co-exist, the fact is that some situations facilitate co-existence better than others. If you have, say, a half-hour between the previous Mass and yours, you can expect to spend half of it re-arranging the sanctuary appointments, only to put them all back afterwards. (Try getting half a dozen boys to do that in a timely manner every Sunday. It's not as if these guys signed on to be furniture movers.) Once I served at a parish that had a huge free-standing altar sitting in the middle, while the priest would say Mass on the unconsecrated shelf behind it which was deemed "the altar of repose." It looked perfectly ridiculous, but depending on where what I like to call "the elephant in the sanctuary" is placed, it may be the only way. Even when it's NOT the only way, some of the rabble in the pews have a real thing about a free-standing altar, regardless of the orientation of the priest.

Of course, at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, no one is complaining about a free-standing altar. Not in the last few centuries anyway...

And what about the faithful themselves, the ones who want the Traditional Mass badly enough that they'll drive across town for it? They can be a positive force in the life of the parish, especially older urban places that would otherwise close down or fall apart. A perfect case in point is St Mary Mother of God Church in Washington DC, east of Chinatown, with the traditional sanctuary and magnificent marble altar and reredos still intact, its view unencumbered by a fixed "people's altar." On the other hand, they can be just a group of malcontents that take over for two hours, complain about their limitations, then leave like a thief in the night when it's over, often after contributing nary a pittance to the financial health of the parish. (If you believe things like that never happen, click here.)

Some have a reason to complain, especially when they're treated badly by the host parish. I've never known this scenario personally, but I do notice that some parishes are "forced" to add a later time to their schedule, rather than replace a regularly scheduled (and more reasonably timed) Mass.

This is how you handle a situation that's meant for everybody. Uh-huh.

It comes down to this: It doesn't matter that a family threw their TV out in the trash, homeschools their kids, and spins their own cloth to make their matching outfits. That family is a product of the society in which they live, and like most of their neighbors, when they want something, they want it right now! There are some unavoidable reasons why that's not going to happen in most places, so they'd better learn to settle in for the aforementioned long haul. They need to look at the big picture, wherein may be found the brighter side, as reports are coming in from all over the country about the growing popularity of the "Extraordinary Form." (Does anyone else hate that term as much as I do?) As I've written before, and have said in different internet discussions time and time again -- tearing something down is much easier than building it back up again.

How that might happen, and what the faithful can do to facilitate it, is the subject of our fifth and final installment.

(UPDATE: While these segments have been appearing every two weeks, the fifth and final segment is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, two weeks later than expected, due to the author's travel plans.).

It has been said that the primary hurdle of the present Pope is regaining to the Papacy the power and authority proper to his office, authority which had been dissipated by a false sense of collegiality over the past 50 years.

There may be no better illustration of the urgency of this aspect of Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy than the systemic disobedience to Summorum Pontificum coming to light during the conference on "Summorum Pontificum" currently taking place in Rome.

Besides the criticism levied against some Traditional Catholic faithful by the President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, the conference on "Summorum Pontificum" currently taking place in Rome also included yesterday a presentation by the secretary of said dicastery, Monsignor Camille Perl. Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli reports (cf. also La Repubblica):

Rome- “In Italy, most bishops” have placed obstacles to the application of the motu proprio of Benedict XVI which liberalized the use of the ancient, pre-Conciliar, Missal in 2007.

…[Camille] Perl participated in Rome at a conference named “The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Benedict XVI: spiritual richness for the entire Church one year later.” “In Italy – the cleric said – most bishops, with few admirable exceptions, have placed obstacles to the application of the motu proprio on the Latin Mass. The same must be said about many Superiors who forbid their priests to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rite.” Monsignor Perl provided a not very rosy picture of the situation also in other countries, recalling that “in Germany, for instance, the Episcopal Conference published highly bureaucratic directives, which make for a difficult application of the motu proprio”, while in France “there are lights and shadows”. Yet to consider Italy, the nation of which the Pope is the primate, as a nation in which bishops have impeded the papal decision, represents a serious judgment, coming from the lips of the number two of the Commission.

The words are interesting, but has something been done about these obstacles? Is some action being planned?

posted by New Catholic

Given this obvious, and now publicly admitted, systemic disobedience to Summorum Pontificum, Cardinal Hoyos' recent criticisms of the victims of this systemic disobedience seem even more dismaying.

Already retired from heading up the Congregation for the Clergy, the Colombian cardinal marks his 80th birthday next summer. With the Ecclesia Dei post normally a side-gig for a senior dicastery head, the buzzmill's already tipped the freshly-installed prefect of the Signatura, Archbishop Raymond Burke, as Castrillon's likely successor there.

This might be a good move for all involved.

Cardinal Hoyos seems to have become a bit impatient listening to the rightful aspirations of Catholics who are writing to PCED so that their rights as outlined in Summorum Pontificum might be actively protected and advanced.

Is the PCED really above criticism in its handling of Summorum Pontificum? As noted earlier on this blog,

We've had "clarifications" that the new lectionary can be imposed upon the Gregorian Rite Mass and that the readings can be done in the vernacular, that the Novus Ordo observance of Holy Days of Obligation can be imposed on the old calendar, we've heard opinions that the discipline of kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue cannot be enforced in celebrations of the Gregorian Rite Mass, and we've had the whole "Good Friday Prayer" fiasco. So, why is the anticipated PCED clarification of Summorum Pontificum being delayed so long...?

Cardinal Hoyos seems to resent criticism and internet apologetics for the restoration of Traditional Catholicism:

ROME (CNS) -- Rather than being grateful, some people have reacted to Pope Benedict XVI's wider permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass with further demands, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," spoke Sept. 16 at a conference marking the first anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum," the document by which Pope Benedict expanded access to the Tridentine rite, the Mass rite used before the Second Vatican Council.

Cardinal Castrillon, whose commission works with communities using the old rite, said his office continues to receive letters requesting the Tridentine rite be used not just at one Mass a week but at every Mass, and that such Masses be available not just at one church in a town but at every church.

He said he even got a letter demanding that Rome's Basilica of St. Mary Major be dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the Tridentine-rite Mass.

Such people, he said, are "insatiable, incredible."

"They do not know the harm they are doing," Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately "they go directly to the Internet" and post their complaints.

The cardinal and officials in his office have been saying for more than a year now that they were preparing detailed instructions responding to questions about how to implement the papal document, which said the Mass in the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship.

Asked about the status of those detailed instructions, Cardinal Castrillon told Catholic News Service that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication.

In addition to responding to the desire of Catholics who wanted more frequent and easier access to Mass celebrated in the old rite, the pope's 2007 document was seen as a major step toward reconciliation with the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated when he ordained four bishops against the express wishes of Pope John Paul II.

But the process of reconciliation broke down in late June when Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St. Pius X and one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, failed to meet four conditions posed by Cardinal Castrillon for moving the process forward.

"The Eucharist should never become a point of contrast and a point of separation," Cardinal Castrillon said at the Sept. 16 conference. "What is more important: the mystery of God who becomes bread or the language by which we celebrate the mystery?"

The cardinal said the Mass -- in whatever language it is celebrated -- must be a service motivated by love and "never a sword" used against other Christians.

By making it easier for priests to celebrate the older liturgy and for the faithful to have access to it, he said, "the vicar of Christ (the pope) was not just exercising his task of governing, but was exercising his task of sanctifying" the people of God.

"When we are before the greatest expression of love for humanity -- the Eucharist -- how can we fight?" Cardinal Castrillon asked.

It must be noted that all the problems of the past 40 years did not evaporate over night with Summorum Pontificum, and that much heavy lifting remains to be done. Some concrete action in the face of recalcitrant bishops would go a long, long way in defusing criticism of the PCED. If the Pope himself were to publicly offer the Gregorian Rite Mass, this too would help defuse the current frustration level among traditional Catholics. (It was not irrational to hope he would have done so within the first 14 months (!) of publication of Summorum Pontificum.)

But with both July 7, 2008 and September 14, 2008 coming and going with neither the publication of the PCED "clarification" nor the Pope himself offering the TLM, the criticism is indeed legitimate.

ADDENDUM:

RorateCaeli has posted a brief comment that seems to summarize the response of most reasonable traditional Catholics to Cardinal Hoyos' puzzling comments:

The first public confirmation of the document which should clarify "Summorum Pontificum" was made nearly a year ago, on October 12, 2007. Its publication has been delayed several times, and today Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", confirmed "that his office had completed its work and passed the draft on to the pope, who would make the final decision about its publication."

Regarding the rest of the article: while there may certainly be room for criticism of a few lay faithful who behave less prudently, we wonder if there has been any true action against bishops who still persecute Traditional Catholic priests and lay faithful around the world or who ignore their requests. Is "Ecclesia Dei" ready and willing to provide the oversight and to exercise the authority it has already been granted by Summorum, regardless of new general clarifications?

To be charitable, we at least have to understand where this deep-seated suspicion, if not contempt, felt by Latin traditionalists comes from: it comes from the horror of years of liturgical “renewal” that often consisted in liturgical experimentation that often lacked a clear connection to what came before, accompanied by little or no catechesis, leading to extreme shortcomings in the celebration of the Holy Mass. If the traditionalists of this sort have taught me something, I owe them a heightened sensitivity to these disconnects, disorders, and abuses.

We all know the horror stories. Let me share one of my own.

In the early 1990’s I was stationed at a military base in San Antonio, Texas. I attended Mass regularly at the base chapel. One day a new priest arrived, an African American man I’ll call “Fr. Troy” – not his real name. His idea of “renewal” was to make the Mass “Afro-centric.” This entailed throwing everything out the window except for the Canon of the Mass which he left pretty much intact. For example, he replaced the Kyrie with Amazing Grace. If you feel that the hymnography put together by the OCP is banal and light, you ought to be thankful that they do not include songs by Whitney Houston. Some of her songs became staple post-communion hymns during Fr. Troy’s celebrations, often sung by guest singers from a local Protestant church’s choir. Fr. Troy himself at times discarded the Roman vestments that were indicative of his dignity as a Catholic priest, preferring to garb himself with the white robes of a Muslim mufti.

I was unable to verbalize a single protest against this priest’s actions for three reasons: I didn’t know how, I didn’t feel like it, and I didn’t feel I had any recourse. The Military Archdiocese is widespread and somehow reporting the priest to the Archbishop appeared to me as somehow short-circuiting the chain of command. What’s worse, I wasn’t well-educated on the origins, meaning, and end of the Liturgical Renewal, therefore, I thought this liturgical disaster was somehow a licit manifestation of liturgical renewal and that, therefore, I had no other resource but to go to a civilian parish off-base, which I did.

I went to St. Jude’s which had at the time a 4 PM Mass where the musical accompaniment was provided by a “mariachi choir”. It was very lively indeed, and culturally more intelligible to me. Yet I knew there was an inconsistency in my own thought, because, isn’t this “mariachi Mass,” I asked myself, but another valid manifestation of “inculturation” and of “diversity” within “unity”? In which way was this better than Fr. Troy’s “Afro-Centric” Mass? Then I answered myself that here, in this “Mexican Mass”, the priest did not violate the structure of the Mass, or changed the prayers, or dressed like an Aztec priest in order to reassert his “cultural heritage.” The choir responses captured the words of the prayers without modification. It was still a very recognizable novus ordo Roman Rite Mass.

On the other hand, Fr. Troy’s Afro-Centrism, besides his forays into Muslim dress, did not represent any given African culture, but African-American pop culture. The Mass at St. Jude’s captured the deeply-felt attitude of an entire Catholic nation, but Fr. Troy’s Mass was a pathetic effort to reshape the Mass into a pop culture psycho-drama which would then be “appealing” to a segment of the faithful long ignorant of the greater Catholic Tradition, East or West, Latin, Greek, or vernacular, or even truly African, and this is only if we focus on the material damage Fr. Troy inflicted upon the Liturgy, not to speak of the spiritual damage he inflicted upon others, the Church, and upon himself.

A critical reappraisal of “traditionalist” Catholics

My interactions with Latin traditionalists have made me want to reconnect with my Catholic roots, but that comes with a twist. You may be surprised to learn that I grew up attending the “new” Mass and that I did not attend what is now known as the extraordinary form of the Mass until my late thirties and even then I attended it more out of curiosity than of an unconscious need that I was somehow missing “something.” Today, my appreciation to the extraordinary form has increased and enjoy it thoroughly in the few occasions when I have been able to attend it.

The faith I reconnected with was the faith of my youth, which I first experienced within the post-Conciliar Church and the “new Mass”, ably led and celebrated by my local ordinary at the time, Bishop Juan Fremiot Torres Oliver of Ponce, Puerto Rico. I saw no abuses at Mass as I was growing up. Our bishop described himself as a “Vatican II conservative.” He had attended the last session of the Council, and although he placed no restrictions on the vernacular Mass, some things were clearly “leftover” and therefore, clearly connected with the usus antiquor. Under his leadership, the transition to the novus ordo was orderly and intelligible to me, more so than what I’ve found it in many places here in the U.S. Mainland.

Today, Latin traditionalists have helped me understand what a liturgical abuse consists of, and realize that the vague sense of uneasiness I felt when, say, Fr. Troy said his Mass, or when banal songs or hymns are used at Liturgy, or when I discovered that the sacred vessels were made of the wrong material, or when the church itself was rearranged in such a way that the Tabernacle was shoved into a corner and the altars were made into perfect squares and no longer occupied a central space in the Church; or when I heard the words of the Creed or of the prayers changed to satisfy a priest’s whim, that my uneasiness was justified, that I shouldn’t see all these things as somehow in accord with the post-Conciliar Liturgical Renewal, but that they were, and continue to be, clearly abuses. Foremost, I also became aware that I had recourse, that I had options, and that I deserved a hearing.

I owe to my relations with Latin traditionalists a more educated, more developed sense of a what a well executed Roman Rite ought to be in either of its two expressions, but even more so in the now “Ordinary Form” of the Missal of Paul VI. They have given me the conceptual apparatus and vocabulary from which I can critique shortcomings in the celebration of either expression of the Roman Rite.

In these my mature years I have become convinced of the wisdom of “say the black, do the red.” A simple obedience to this rubric would have made Fr. Troy’s liberties and in fact, all likely-minded experimentation, quite impossible.

That’s why I agree with the Pope that the Latin traditionalists need to be accepted and embraced as full Catholics, and not feared. We need to allow their spirit and finesse to reenter the entire Church. Of course, they have to wrestle with their own temptations and shortcomings too, as we have seen, but it will be better for them and for all of us that they do so within the Church and not in some schismatic outfit well outside of her.

Their effect is now being felt. I haven’t personally seen egregious abuses since the early 1990s during Fr. Troy’s experiments. But much remains to be done in terms of language, hymnography, music, and church architecture in order to bring to bear Pope Benedict’s idea of a “hermeneutic of continuity” in the full spectrum of the Church’s liturgical action.

True renewal will not be achieved without a living connection to what came before. I humbly submit to any one in a position of authority that Latin traditionalists have a just place in the Church, that they should not be discouraged, and that the full expanse of the Church’s treasures should be rediscovered and once again shared with all. Their contribution should be seen as an integral part of the Post-Conciliar renewal and not as something foreign or inimical to it.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

[Note: This is the third in a series of articles. A proper understanding of the author's intent presumes a reading of the series as a whole. This would include both the first and second parts of the series.]

In the previous installment of this series, we dealt with the numbers of the faithful willing to attend a Traditional Latin Mass regularly. Obviously there must be priests who are able to celebrate this form of the Mass.

Contrary to what some chancery operative would have you believe, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum does not require such a command of Latin as to recite the works of Cicero from memory; simply the ability to competently use the text of the traditional Roman Missal, to follow the Latin rubrics, and to pronounce the spoken text correctly, with sufficient comprehension. (Since much of the English vocabulary is based on Latin, it's not as arduous a task as certain people make it out to be.) And, just so there's no misunderstanding...

[T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St Pius V and reissued by Bl John XXIII is to be [...] given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage... It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated... [E]ach Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl Pope John XXIII in 1962... For such celebrations [...], the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary...

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

All over the country, all over the world, priests are flocking to houses of study and seminaries, to seminars and websites, ordering books and DVDs, all to learn the Traditional Mass. They can't very well return to the seminary to learn to say Mass all over again, unless their bishop sends them to a place like the Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Nebraska for a week (which many do). All told, the ancient rite is slowly making its way into the lives of mainstream Catholic parishes.

Too slowly, if the internet chatter is any indication. Beyond those situations where chancery bureaucrats set up arbitrary (if not illicit) roadblocks, for want of anything better to do, there are still some practical (there's that word again) considerations.

First and foremost, consider that without Summorum Pontificum ever seeing the light of day, the typical parish priest works six days a week. Let's repeat that: Six. Days. A. Week. Most of those workdays easily run from ten to twelve hours each. The shortest day for most, in terms of hours, is Sunday. Even that one starts early, and consists of several hours of meeting the constant demands of one person or group after the other -- all before lunch. If you've ever wondered why a rectory is the last place to find a priest on a Sunday afternoon, now you know.

I am not saying there are not priests who make the time. I am saying this is what they generally have to overcome when they make the time.

So let's imagine that a young family with several children in tow visit the pastor. They make a reasonable request along the lines of the aforementioned decree, for an additional Mass, to an already full schedule on Sunday morning. They are also able to assure Father that several dozen other families -- most of them from other parishes, whom Father does not normally serve, and over whom he has no pastoral authority -- will also be willing to attend. Now, Father cannot say more than three Masses on a Sunday except for an emergency. This is not an emergency. Father also knows that most of his parishioners (those whom he IS obligated to serve) like things the way they are just fine. God only knows why, but they do. Oh, it can't be too late in the day, Father, since little John Paul has to go down for his nap just after noon. Father is thinking about that already-crowded schedule, and how he would really like to accommodate these folks. In fact, he rather favors the Old Mass himself. Now, if only he could unbolt the altar weighing two tons from its location and move it back about six or eight feet...

At times like these, forty years of clowns and balloons and dancing girls and other worst-case scenarios that don't happen nearly as much as you wish they would to prove your point, aren't even an issue. It really comes down to the simple matter of adding another obligation to an already-full schedule -- all on the assumption that the person being prevailed upon has the same enthusiasm for the idea as does his petitioners.

But let's give ourselves some latitude for the moment. Suppose a change in the Sunday Mass schedule, rather than an addition, is actually on the table. After all, a pastor who is dedicated to Benedict XVI's vision for restoration of the sacred, cannot overlook the possibility, regardless of whether the pastoral council gets wind of it. This is also a big issue for families with young children. The best time for them to start seems to be anywhere from eight in the morning, to (maybe, just maybe) as late as ten. After that, the young ones tend to get cranky, as it is coming up on nap time. The parents could probably use a nap as well.

So why doesn't a parish schedule the Traditional Mass for an earlier time? The Pope says we're entitled to this, right?

Here's where thinking in a vacuum has its disadvantages. Let's say a typical parish has a Sunday Mass schedule with starting times at 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, and 12:00 (which is possible at a large parish with at least two priests available). Let's say the pastor is in a position to replace one of those with a Traditional Mass, as opposed to adding to the schedule. Why does he pick the 12:00 noon Mass for that purpose, as this would be inconvenient? Why not replace the 9:00 or the 10:30? It is here that we step out of the vacuum and consider how others are affected. For one thing, the alleged riff-raff of "novus ordo Catholics" who already attend the 9:00 and the 10:30 have children as well, who get just as cranky around nap time. Mommy and Daddy are also active parishioners who contribute financially -- one of the precepts of the Church, not exactly a "novus ordo" concept -- whereas the majority of attendees at a Traditional Mass, for the foreseeable future, may largely hail from neighboring parishes. Maybe they'll contribute financially; maybe they won't.

If you were the pastor, would you bet the ability to pay next month's bills on it?

Finally, a Traditional Mass, in particular a High Mass, can run over an hour quite easily, which can throw off the whole schedule afterwards. Does that mean we make the 12:00 Mass into the 12:30? Shouldn't those affected be considered? Coming from outside the parish, do we care? And if we don't, what does that say about us? What it says about a pastor, is that he is left with knowing that everybody is entitled to something, not just people who want the Old Mass. He also knows that his main obligation to the care of souls, is primarily in the area where he serves -- usually a geographic territory known as a "parish."

Okay. Say we've gotten past all that, and we have a regularly scheduled Traditional Mass, at a regular parish, on a Sunday morning. Now the real work begins...

There is not only the matter of the priest being trained to do so properly, but that of boys or men (not girls or women, as we are concerned with conditions under the older observance) who are trained to serve the Mass. The reformed Roman Missal does not require a designated clerk for assistance; the classical Roman Missal does. If the host parish uses albs for vesture, and you just can't imagine the sight of that*, it may fall to you to provide cassocks and surplices. The requirements for priestly vesture are also more demanding in the classical form. If the parish cannot fulfill those requirements, will your "stable group" be able to make it happen? If you want a High Mass at any one time, there has to be a schola, or at the very least, a cantor who is schooled in Gregorian chant**, and who is able to lead the chants of the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, et cetera), as well as sing the propers for the Mass (Introit, Gradual, et cetera).

I know what you're all thinking...

A typical response to the above scenario at some point, is that special parishes should be established, dedicated solely to offering the Traditional Mass and Sacraments, and staffed exclusively by priests from Traditional orders like the Fraternity, or the Institute of Christ the King. Obviously the bishops are not willing to have them in their dioceses, or these orders would be setting up shop all over the place by now. And while no one admits it, this would appear to be a more convenient alternative than that other one. After all, with our own parishes, we can live happily ever after, and the rest of the "novus ordo church" can go to hell in a handbasket. Something like that, right?

It all looks so simple. Too simple, really.

That's why I spoke with a source close to the Fraternity, on the condition of their anonymity.

The major focus of such orders right now, is on the training of diocesan priests to celebrate the Traditional Mass themselves. While arguably a short-term solution, it has been determined to be the best one for the immediate future. As to the long haul, there are numerous requests from bishops to have these orders come to their dioceses and administer special parishes. This is where the short-term solution comes in, since these same orders currently lack the sheer numbers to fulfill the requests they are getting. Some dioceses have been informed that the wait could be as long as ten years! So, it's a great idea, but it won't happen tomorrow. And lest we forget, we're usually talking about starting a new parish in an area which may already have enough, if not too many. An enormous amount of financial and human resources are involved in the transaction, on the assumption of a demand that may or may not exist. Sufficient compensation for the order administering the parish must be negotiated (and things have been known to break down on this point). With any luck, a suitable parish in the inner city that is nearly abandoned but still serviceable, would be available for a Traditional order to take over. Maybe a few generous benefactors will step forward. Maybe people from the suburbs would be willing to drive into the city. Maybe they will have a safe place to park. It can happen, but this or something like it is what probably has to happen.

In the meantime, the Holy Father does not wish the Traditional Mass to be the exclusive domain of specially-created parishes, but ultimately be a component of the worship life of all Roman Rite parishes. In the larger context, he envisions the Traditional Mass as the spearhead of the eventual counter-reform of the Roman Rite, whatever set of books is used. (We keep forgetting that part, don't we?)

All told, the endeavor will still require diocesan priests to be trained to celebrate the Traditional Mass. It isn't happening as quickly as some people would like. Why it isn't happening, and a more detailed account of what it would take for it to happen, is a subject for our fourth installment.

---

* In Eastern Europe, the use of surplices over street clothes, without the use of cassocks, is not uncommon. In Australia, the use of albs instead of cassocks and surplices is not uncommon either.

** It is preferable that the schola consist entirely of men, as they are functioning as surrogates for minor clerics. In the event that only women are available, it is preferable that the schola be composed entirely of women. Either case would ensure what is known as "purity of sound." If you have to ask what that is, you are at a disadvantage in challenging this point.